Obama On Israel-Palestine
I previously referenced this interview in my Cafe piece on Joe Lieberman's smear about Obama and Hamas.
But I want to comment on it independent of that silliness.
This is a great interview about Israel. That is not because Obama says the kind of things I would say about Israel and the Palestinians. I would be far more critical of Israeli policies than he is and far more sympathetic to the legitimate needs of the Palestinian people.
But this is a very different statement than one sees from most candidates. And I'll tell you why.
With the exception of Bill Richardson this year, most of our Democrats believe that issuing a pro-Israel statement requires issuing an anti-Palestinian statement.
They know that the right-wing segment of the Jewish community is not nearly as likely to stand up and applaud a pro-Israel statement as an anti-Palestinian one. If you doubt this, you have never been to a pro-Israel conference. The applause goes to the Hagee/Santorum types not the Joe Bidens.
Obama knows that. And he knows that the rightwing of the community does not like him and that he might be able to appease them by doing a full court suckup.
But he won't do it.
And he doesn't have to because, unlike almost every other candidate we've had except Bill Clinton, he knows Israel so well that he can talk about it with sophistication, subtlety without gushing. Has there ever been a candidate who so refers easily to the "Zionist idea" and can quote an the Israeli author like David Grossman?
Clearly Obama knows this issue backwards and forwards. It is also clear that he understands both the need for a secure Jewish state and its need to achieve peace with the Palestinians. That is why he will not only encourage serious negotiations toward implementation of the two-state solution but will put his immense personal prestige as President behind the effort to get the Muslim world to accept Israel.
A President Obama, because of who and what he is, can do more for Israel -- and that means more for the Palestinians as well -- than any President we have had yet.
As the interview makes clear, that is what he intends to do. Yes he can.
That's very brave of Obama given that he's a Muslim.
You know it really sucks that I can't make that joke without saying it's a joke because if I do, somebody might take it seriously.
Which is very brave of me, as a Muslim.
May 12, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you really a Muslim? Damn. All my fans turn out to be Muslims! Just kidding.
May 12, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Im not a Muslim, but I am enjoying your posts more and more. :)
May 12, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got damn log in problems.
"I am not Muslim" I meant.
Not "A" Muslim. I Cant stand when people do that.
May 12, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The beauty part is that it doesn't even really matter. Republicans are crowing about how Obama "only" beats McCain among Jews in polls by 2-1, whereas Kerry hammered Bush in 2004 among Jewish voters 3-1....
May 12, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to conclude that Obama may need look elsewhere for the grief he is likely to take over the Israeli-Arab conflict. It isn't Jews who are mostly illiterate about the particulars of the conflict. He needs to worry about the crap dished out to the vast electoral wasteland that takes FoxNews seriously.
May 12, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar Kafka:
I don't understand why people worry so much about the Jewish vote. Only NY, CA and FL have substantial Jewish populations, and of these only FL is in play -- maybe!
When the Jewish issue is put before the voter, front and center, the results are a wash. Indeed, scrutinizing the 2000 election results it appears that Lieberman's presence on the ticket almost put FL in Gore's column. OTOH, some claim that it definitely lost him WV and maybe even TN, his home state.
In the past, Presidential candidates sought the Jewish support for the big campaign donations, but it looks like Obama won't need that.
May 13, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
iaf,
The funny thing is, in Illinois anyway, Obama already has it. The biggest lesson I'm learning from this campaign so far is really how much Chicago is just another flyover town to be ignored by the coastal punditocracy.
May 13, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, I was very impressed with the speech. As both a Jew and a Muslim.
May 12, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beyond comparison to other American politicians and if he's read Grossman he knows that the Palestinians have been victimized. I would advise him to read Robert Fisk's Great War for Civilization on the enire Mideast AND Afghanistan---where I hope he's just kidding about having us be more aggressive---we'll end up just like the Russians did.
May 12, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no two-state solution. Zionism, for whatever else it is (and that is a lot I will admit), is still predicated on the dispossession and disenfranchisement of Palestinians. Obama is being forced into a corner to voice support for Israel's separatist, secessionist ideology and if he goes down this road he will be no further along getting to peace 8 years hence. Have no doubt, Israel is getting more and more nervous that it has run out of large numbers of Jews to pack itself with without scaring up Jewish communities in the West, its actions show no willingness to pay anything but lip service to two-states, and it remains locked into Herzl's desire for the "Jewish State" to be a "rampart" against the indigenous 'Asian' population. Does Obama buy into this too? This coin has two sides. Let's hope he sees both.
May 12, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is no more "separatist," "secessionist" or abnormal to the region as a Jewish state than the 22 member nations of the Arab League. In Obama, we have an opportunity to break out of a simplistic zero-sum foreign policy habit, and realize that the national rights of Jews and Arabs in the former Palestine Mandate are not mutually exclusive.
May 13, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Why do you keep talking about Obama's position on Israel? Just to vent? Do you really think you are winning ANYONE over?
The people who already hate Israel will vote for Obama without your encouragement. The people who are open to Obama on other issues and concerned about his perceived Israel position will not be at all reassured by your constant baiting of them. Some of his statements may be helpful, but reading you actually makes me want to vote for Obama less and I am both a lifelong Democrat and someone who believed in the Oslo process. I still plan to vote for Obama because some of his other positions are very good and even on Israel, where I have some doubts, I think he will listen more to people like Dennis Ross than you.
Think about what you are "accomplishing" here. Is this just therapy for you? Do you feel guilty for having worked for AIPAC so that you now have turned into the David Horowitz of the Israel issue, going from one manichean view of the conflict to the opposite?
May 12, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vito writes:
Look, with Hizballah in the process of taking over control of Lebanon, with Hamas likely to win the PA Presidency next year when Abu Mazen's term in office expires, and with us still deeply entangled in Iraq, it appears that whoever the next President is, he'll be preoccupied with the Middle East.
Having said that, I seriously doubt that his #1 issue will be the peace process, for the very simple reason: neither Hizballlah nor Hamas are in the slightest interested in peace with Israel. At most, they are willing to negotiate a temporary truce (hudna or tahadiya), which only postpones the inevitable.
Israel can tolerate none of these two scenarios shaping up right on its borders: (1) Hizballah turning Lebanon into the second Shia-dominated Arab state (after Iraq) and an Iranian outpost on the Mediterranean; or (2) Hamas taking control of the West Bank, which will give them the ability to threaten Israel's core population, industry and transportation centers.
I honestly pray to be proven wrong on this, but it looks like next year, the kind of advice our new President will need won't come from respected civilian ME experts like Dennis Ross or from schizophrenic clowns like Rosenberg, but from 3- and 4-star generals.
This is about much more than simply "Zionism and Hamas": the entire region is about to go up in flames. (Egypt is also rather shaky -- a potential powder keg.) For Obama's sake, I hope he understands this and plans to seriously bolster his image as the future Commander-in-Chief (maybe by choosing a running mate with strong DoD credentials.) Otherwise, sad to say -- it'll be President John McCain.
May 12, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya see Vito. It's like this. It's an important issue and people care about it. And Americans need to know that most Jews are not rightwing xenophobic nuts.
As for doing penance for mr 4 years at AIPAC, I don't know. I left AIPAC in '86 and, i have to admit, stayed with the AIPAC position until 1993.
Then the Palestinians endorsed the two state solution and Israel recognized the PLO. I was on the White House lawn and suddenly I understood how imperative it was that Israel and the Palestinians end the conflict.
So that's where I've been these past 15 years.
I know how painful this all is to you. Hell, the Brandeis Student Senate voted down a resolution celebrating Israel's 60th birthday because it didn't mention the naqba.
That's Brandeis, my alma mater and a Jewish university.
It's all changing, Vito. It's hard. What can I tell you? Keep reading and keep those responses coming in. My value at TPM is gauged by the number of responses I get. So thanks my agitated friend.
May 12, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks MJ. Keep on speaking up! In regards to Isreal, the US right wing has the bigger and louder megaphone. It is good to read that Jews are not of one mind in regards to the policies of Israel.
May 12, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Blue Pearl. I will keep speaking up. My side of the debate -- the clear majority of Jewish Americans -- has been silent too long. These rightwing ethnic chauvinists bring to mind that Jack Nicholson line, they "can't handle the truth."
And they work around the clock to suppress it.
I'll tell you, if I didn't have a secure job and money in the bank, I'd be scared shitless to take on this issue.
Look at what these people are doing to Rob Malley. Luckily he has a Harvard Law degree, but they are trying to make him unemployable because he dared to write that Barak was as bas as Arafat at Camp David.
May 12, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. writes:
Speak all you want, kvetch all you want, but know this: the clear majority that will decide the fate of the State of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the majority of Israelis. And, as you're well aware, they vehemently disagree with your positions.
Hmm, I thought you said Malley was not on Obama's payroll and therefore was not fired. How then was his dismissal detrimental to his income?
Besides, last time I checked, Rob Malley was on George Soros's payroll. Does Soros have liquidity problems?
May 12, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is also clear that he understands both the need for a secure Jewish state and its need to achieve peace with the Palestinians. That is why he will not only encourage serious negotiations toward implementation of the two-state solution but will put his immense personal prestige as President behind the effort to get the Muslim world to accept Israel."
Let's hope so. If he sends Bill Clinton and Dennis Ross to the region to get Abbas to take the the Taba deal that the weasel could have had, maybe it will happen. If he listens to you and Levy and Carter abd Breszinsky, it won't.
May 12, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So talking is bad, now?
The only preconditions we really need are recognition of Israel and an honoring of the past, as we can't trust somebody who thinks he's negotiating with the Hanukkah Zombie or won't hold to his word or that of his predecessors. Too much more, however reasonable at face value, will smell of hubris and cause them to balk. Think of it this way: if they told us that we had to get rid of all the settlements before they'd talk with us, we'd ask "then what would we be talking about? We'd already have done what you want."
May 12, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
apacmember writes:
While things sure don't move quickly in the Middle East, they don't stand still either. The Taba deal is no longer on the table. It was pretty much DOA when it was first proposed, and I doubt it could ever be resuscitated.
Besides, the troika Bush-Olmert-Abbas -- lame ducks all -- has so little credibility at home and abroad, that they couldn't together pass a parking ordnance, never mind resolve an intractable 100-year old conflict.
May 13, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marc Ambinder quotes some despicable Republican commentary on the Obama interview in his blog at The Atlantic.
May 12, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a pattern emerging here. As Boehner and Cantor assign the "constant sore" metaphor to Israel and not the conflict, as Obama originally had, Joe Lieberman has raised the spector of agism regarding Obama's remark about McCain's ethical "bearings." In typical quasi-populist anti-intellectual fashion, the GOP is counting on its audience's ignorance of Obama's original statements, and the routine dynamic whereby the electronic news industry builds an issue upon the right wing malinterpretation. Here we find the GOP's home field advantage, and banking on the old H.L. Mencken remark that "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Scary.
May 13, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeffrey Goldberg has posteda follow-up post decrying Rep Boehner's despicable statement about the Obama interview:
May 13, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nice to know, but ultimately and maddeningly depressing that neither Goldberg's nor Sullivan's righteous condemnations of Boehner and Cantor are likely to ever reach beyond the choir.
May 13, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks MJ, I was tremendously impressed with the interview as well. Now if you could just kindly convince my father-in-law who insists Palestinians have it just fine and thinks racism ended in the 1950s (hey, there's always going to be prejudice but racism ended with that Supreme Court decision).
I'd explain it to him but I'm a goy. I mean, a Muslim.
May 13, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink